Bava Metzia

Bava Metzia 102a: Ownership of a stray cat

YCLeave a comment

Bava Metzia 102a: Doves that live in a dovecote or an attic are subject to the law of sending away the mother before taking the eggs (because they are considered ownerless), but the Sages forbade stealing them in order to keep the peace.  

ב”א קב ע”א יוני שובך ויוני עלייה חייבות בשילוח, ואסורות בגזל מפני דרכי שלום.

Rav Eliyahu Dushnitzer served as Rosh Yeshiva and Mashgiach in Yeshivas Lomza in Petach Tikva, and many Torah giants – among them Rav Elazar Menachem Shach zt’l, Rav Shalom Schwadron zt’l, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky – viewed themselves as his privileged students. Livelihood was not easy to come by in those days, and Rav Eliyahu’s revered wife supported the family by selling chickens. She ran a stall in the marketplace, and the Rav noticed that there was a certain cat that persistently roamed around the chicken stall, eating up the scraps left behind. After his wife passed away, Rav Eliyahu worried that he had halachically inherited the cat, in which case he was obligated in all laws of damages. He subsequently gathered three men together, pronounced the cat “hefker”, and sent it on its way.

Source: http://www.tog.org.il/en/Article.aspx?id=271

[Here are three approaches to understand this story:

  1. Just as the Sages viewed the doves as property of the dovecote owner for the purposes of stealing, they are also considered his “ox” and he must pay for any damage they cause. Similarly, if a stray cat roams around your property and you consistently feed it, it becomes yours Mid’rabanan and you must pay for any damage it causes. The proof that you are liable for damages is from the Mishnah in Bava Basra 23a, where it says that a dovecote must be kept at least 50 amos from the city, so that the doves shouldn’t eat other people’s food. One might argue that the Mishnah is referring to doves that were actually owned on a Torah level (e.g. he originally kept them in cages and made a kinyan on them, and only later he housed them in a dovecote where they were free to come and go). However, the Rambam clearly learns that it’s talking about doves that are owned Mid’rabanan, because in Hilchos Gezeilah 6:7-8 he brings that halacha that stealing doves in Rabbinically forbidden, and in the very next halacha, halacha 9, he brings the Mishnah in Bava Basra that one must prevent his doves from doing damage. So clearly, when you own an animal Mid’rabanan, you are liable for damages too.
  2. The Gemara in Bava Kama 56b says that if Reuven takes Shimon’s sheep and places it in Levi’s field, and it proceeds to eat the crops, Reuven must pay. This is called מעמיד בהמת חבירו על קמת חבירו. Here too, although Rabbi Eliyahu Dushnitzer’s wife was not the owner of the cat, since she caused it to come to the area, she was responsible, and now he had inherited that responsibility. The trouble with this explanation is that if so, declaring it ownerless would not help. It was already ownerless. The issue was that she brought it there.
  3. Perhaps since the cat helped Rabbi Eliyahu Dushnitzer’s wife clean up the scraps, she was happy that it came, and therefore had intent to acquire it through the fenced-in area where her chickens lived – קנין חצר.]
Taharos

Mikvaos 7:1 – Making a Mikveh out of Ice – Part II

YCLeave a comment

Mikvaos 7:1: The following substances may be used as part of the minimum volume of the mikveh: snow, hail, frost and ice… Rabbi Akiva said, “Rabbi Yishmoel disagreed with me and said that snow cannot be used for a mikveh.” But the men of Meidva testified that Rabbi Yishmoel told them to go out, bring snow and make the entire mikveh out of snow. 

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 201:31: A mikveh made of mayim sh’uvim (water that was carried in vessels) that later froze is now free of the taint of mayim sh’uvim. If it melted, it is kosher to gather. Shach: This means that it is now like rainwater and one may immerse oneself in it. 

מקואות פ”ז מ”א אלו מעלין ולא פוסלין השלג והברד והכפור והגליד… אמר ר’ עקיבא היה ר’ ישמעאל דן כנגדי לומר השלג אינו מעלה את המקוה והעידו אנשי מידבא משמו שאמר להם צאו והביאו שלג ועשו מקוה בתחילה.

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רא סעיף לא: מקוה שאוב שהגליד טהור משום מים שאובים, נימוחו כשר להקוות. וביאר הש”ך בסקע”ד: כשר להקוות, כלומר שחזרו להיות כמו מי גשמים ומותר לטבול בהן.

A rav in an American city retired, passing his position down to his son. The new rav decided to have the old mikveh, which had served the community for fifty years, checked by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Katz, a world-renowned expert on mikvaos. When Rabbi Katz checked the pipes that brought the rainwater down from the roof, he saw that they were completely posul according to all opinions. “If these pipes were ever used to fill the mikveh, it would be a posul mikveh,” he said.

Hearing these words, the young rav turned white as a sheet and was on the verge of fainting. It took a few minutes for him to regain his power of speech, and then he said, “I don’t remember these pipes ever being changed. I think they were here from the time the mikveh was built.” They called over the old non-Jewish caretaker of the building and asked him who installed the pipes, and he replied casually that he had installed them himself fifty years ago, and they had never been changed.

“Do you realize the magnitude of this problem?” the young rav cried to Rabbi Katz. “Not only is this the only mikveh in this city and the surrounding area, and all the women used it – I myself was born from this mikveh. But also, hundreds of geirim underwent their conversions here over the past fifty years. Many of them have children and grandchildren now, living all over the world. Some of these geirim and their children became sofrim, and have written hundreds and thousands of tefillin, mezuzos and sifrei torah which are sold throughout the world. Many of the geirim signed on gittin or served as witnesses for kiddushin. We are looking at a terrible churban here…” he sighed. “But,” he continued, “if the mikveh is posul, then there is no choice. It will take me years to track down all the geirim and their children and grandchildren, and get them to tovel in a kosher mikveh. I have a very difficult job ahead of me.”

With a pained expression, the rav added, “My father built this mikveh fifty years ago when he first took his position as rav. He built it with mesirus nefesh, because most of the members of the congregation then were not religious, and didn’t allow him to use the kehillah’s money to build a mikveh. They even threatened to fire him if he insisted on building it. But my father was not afraid; he raised the money elsewhere and built the mikveh. I don’t understand it! How could such a terrible stumbling block result from my father’s devotion to this cause?”

The young rav, of course, had the pipes fixed based on Rabbi Katz’s instructions, and filled up the mikveh’s reservoir with new rainwater. But his mind could find no rest; he could not stop wondering how he and his father could have caused so many people to stumble into sin.

Rabbi Katz went home. A few weeks later, his phone rang. It was the young rav from that city, calling to update him on the story.

“After you left,” he said, “I could not rest. At first, I resisted telling my father, who lives in another city, because I didn’t want to cause him pain. But in the end, I decided to simply ask my father to tell me the story behind the mikveh. I hoped I would find some heter and not have to track down all the geirim, or deal with the other resulting problems.

“I went to visit my father, and began to chat with him about one subject and then another. Eventually I turned the conversation to the mikveh. ‘Please, tell me the story behind it,’ I said. My father was surprised by the question, and then let out a deep sigh of sorrow. ‘This story brought me nothing but pain and heartache. Let’s not talk about it,’ he said. But I insisted, ‘Father, I really want to know about it. Who built the mikveh? Who installed the pipes? I want to hear every detail.’ My father sat lost in thought for a few minutes, looking like someone re-living a painful ordeal.

“Finally, he began to tell the story. ‘When I proposed building a mikveh, several baalei batim who were the leaders of the Kehillah opposed me. They threatened that if I went through with it, they would hold elections and choose a new rabbi. But I didn’t care what they said. With mesirus nefesh, I built the mikveh. For the mikveh itself, I was given a blueprint by a rav who was an expert on mikvaos. But for the rainwater pipes, he didn’t give me a blueprint, so I had the non-Jewish repairman and caretaker install them. But let me tell you what an embarrassment I suffered because of this mikveh. On the day the mikveh was finished and the goy opened the pipes to collect rainwater, a drought began. In this part of the country, it rains many times a week without fail, summer or winter. Under normal circumstances, all the reservoirs of rainwater could have been filled within one week. But on the day we finished the mikveh, the heavens closed up. This continued day after day, week after week. The baalei batim who had opposed me were laughing and saying, look how heaven is punishing the rav for making the mikveh against the will of his congregation. Surely if the mikveh were a good thing, Hashem would not hold back the rain. This proves that the rav did the wrong thing. My shame was awful.

“’And so, many months passed. Historians said that no such drought had ever hit this state before. And everyone saw that the drought had started precisely on the day the mikveh opened. One can’t imagine the disgrace that I suffered.

“’After almost a year had gone by, I spoke to another rav, crying and pouring out my bitter heart, asking him why I deserved such a punishment for making a mikveh with mesirus nefesh. The other rav said to me, “Listen, I don’t know Hashem’s chesbonos, but you can fill up your mikveh with snow or ice.” And he explained to me how to do it. The next day, I filled the mikveh with snow and ice, and it was ready to use. Amazingly, the very next day, there was a flood of rain. It was as if all the rain held back in the sky for all these months was coming down now. My embarrassment was now doubled. The baalei batim said, “Look how much Hashem hates you. As soon as you filled your mikveh with snow and ice, it rained.” So the whole mikveh story remained a painful mystery to me, and after that, I never refilled the rainwater basin. I never used the pipes installed by my worker to feed rainwater into the mikveh.’

“As soon as I heard that, I almost fainted with joy. I then explained to my father why I had been asking so many questions about this story. ‘Father, now we see how much hashgacha pratis and siyata dishmaya Hashem gave to this mikveh. It’s the opposite of what you thought: Hashem interfered in nature and held back the rain so that you couldn’t make the mikveh out of rainwater, since the pipes were posul. Hashem saw your mesirus nefesh for taharas yisroel and made a miracle.’” 

The young rav concluded telling his story to Rabbi Katz, and then added, “Although the mikveh turned out to be kosher, please promise me that you will keep this story strictly confidential.” When Rabbi Katz later published the story in his sefer, he omitted the name of the rav and the city.

The lesson of this story is that sometimes, a person may harbor complaints about the way Hashem runs His world. “I did such-and-such a good deed; why do I deserve this or that?” A person doesn’t realize that what looks to us like a punishment is sometimes actually a reward, a Divine intervention to save us. This old rav had gone around for fifty years with a grudge against Hashem. Why, he thought, did he deserve this disgrace? He was total unaware that Hashem had turned nature upside down for his sake.

Source: Tiferes Lemoshe, by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Katz, p. 221

[Besides the amazing lesson and chizuk in emunah from this story, it is tempting to try to draw the conclusion that Hashem Himself approved of the use of artificial ice for a mikveh. The trouble is that the story is not clear as to whether snow or ice, or both, were used. The language is, “I filled the mikveh with snow and ice.” Snow is natural, so would not be relevant to our question. Even if it was ice, it could have been natural ice, cut from a river or lake, assuming that the city where this took place was in an area with cold winters. However, the sentence, “In this part of the country, it rains many times a week without fail, summer or winter” indicates that the story took place in one of the southeastern states.  So, pending more details, we have no proof from this story.]

Yevamos

Yevamos 60b: Kohanim and the body of Jeremy Bentham

YCLeave a comment

Yevamos 60b: Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, “The graves of non-Jews do not transmit tumah through a roof, as it is written, “And you, My flocks, the flocks of My pasture, you are man” (Yechezkel 34:31). You are called “man” but the non-Jews are not called “man”.

Tosafos: The Ri said that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, but rather Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who disagrees with him in Oholos.

Oholos 8:1: A large wooden closet can block tumah from ascending.

Raavad Nezirus 5:15: The kohanim nowadays are already tamei meis, so they are not liable for the sin of coming in contact with tumah.

יבמות ס ע”ב: תניא, וכן היה ר״ש בן יוחאי אומר קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל, שנא׳: (יחזקאל ל״ד) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, אתם קרויין אדם, ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם.

תוספות יבמות סא ע”א ד”ה ממגע. ואר״י דאין הלכה כר״ש דרשב״ג פליג עליה כדתנן במס׳ אהלות (פרק יח מ״ט כתובות עז.) והלכה כמותו במשנתנו וצריכים כהנים ליזהר מקברי עובדי כוכבים.

אהלות פ”ח מ”א: אלו מביאים וחוצצים.השדה והתבה והמגדל.

ראב”ד בהשגה על הלכות נזירות פ”ה הט”ו: מעתה טומאה וטומאה אפילו פירש וחזר ונגע פטור והכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהן חיוב טומאה והמחייב אותם עליו להביא ראיה.

The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) specified in his will that he wanted his body to be preserved as a lasting memorial, and this instruction was duly carried out by his friend Dr. Thomas Southwood Smith.

In 1850, Southwood Smith donated the body to University College London, which Bentham had helped found, and from then until 2020, the body was displayed at the end of the South Cloisters in the main building of the college. Upon the retirement of Sir Malcolm Grant as provost of the college in 2013, however, the body was present at Grant’s final council meeting. As of 2013, this was the only time that the body of Bentham has been taken to a UCL council meeting. (There is a persistent myth that the body of Bentham is present at all council meetings.)

Bentham had intended this “auto-icon” to incorporate his actual head, mummified to resemble its appearance in life. Southwood Smith’s experimental efforts at mummification, based on practices of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and involving placing the head under an air pump over sulfuric acid and drawing off the fluids, although technically successful, left the head looking distastefully macabre, with dried and darkened skin stretched tautly over the skull.

The auto-icon was therefore given a wax head, fitted with some of Bentham’s own hair. The real head was displayed in the same case as the auto-icon for many years, but became the target of repeated student pranks, with students from rival King’s College London often the culprits. The head is said to have at one time been found in a luggage locker at Aberdeen station, and to have been used as a football by students in the Quad. These events led to the head being removed from display.

In 2020, the body was put into a new glass display case and moved to the entrance of UCL’s new Student Centre on Gordon Square.

In 1965, Dayan Aryeh Leib Grossnass of the London Beth Din published a teshuva written to kohanim who were students at University College. Dayan Grossnass describes the question as follows: “Many years ago, the leading professor of that university, who was one of the most famous in the world, left a will instructing that his body be kept permanently in the hall of the university. He also instructed that at special gatherings, his body should be displayed as he looked in his lifetime, sitting at his place and giving a lecture. After he died, they removed the head from the body, mummified the body and connected an artificial head made of wax, and placed him on a chair in a glass box with wheels on the bottom to transport it from place to place, with a book in his hand, as if giving a lecture. His knees touched the glass of the box. All the time, they keep this box inside a large wooden closet next to the wall, with a door that opens and closes. Sometimes they open the closet to show the body to whoever wants to see it. When there is a gathering, they take the glass box out of the wooden closet and display it in the middle of the hall. The head that was removed from the body was mummified and placed in a small wooden box atop a platform on the wall of the hall. Occasionally, if people are interested in seeing it, they take down the wooden box and open it. According to the information given to me, it has been about 20 years since they last took the box off the platform. Anyone attending any lecture or visiting the library must pass through this hall; there is no other entrance. May kohanim pass through the hall when the body is inside the glass box inside the closet? And may they participate in gatherings when the glass box is taken out of the closet and wheeled to the center of the room?”

Dayan Grossnass then proposes two reasons to be lenient: 1) The body of a non-Jew, according to some opinions, has no tumas ohel (does not transmit tumah to those under the same roof with it); and 2) The wooden box and/or the glass box might serve as a roof over the body, which would block the tumah from ascending the ceiling of the building and spreading to everyone in the building.

Regarding the first argument, he shows that a non-Jew’s tumas ohel is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Yevamos 60b) and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Oholos 18:9). Tosafos and the Rosh rule strictly, while the Rambam (Hilchos Tumas Mes 1:13) rules leniently. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 372:2) concludes that it is better for kohanim to be strict and avoid coming under the same roof with a dead non-Jew.

Regarding the second argument, he says that the wooden closet, although not connected to the building, is an ohel of its own, blocking the tumah from ascending to the ceiling of the building and spreading through the hall. The reason is that a large wooden closet is not susceptible to tumah, and we have a rule that anything not susceptible to tumah is able to block tumah. Although other vessels made of material that is not susceptible to tumah (e.g. stone) would nonetheless not block tumah from ascending, that is because they are physically small like any other vessel and simply can’t contract tumah for a technical reason. But a large wooden closet has the status of an ohel, not a vessel, and therefore blocks the tumah. This is explicit in the Mishnah, Oholos 8:1.

Dayan Grossnass wrote the above based on what he was told by students. Later, he visited the college himself and saw that the wooden closet was actually bolted to the floor. Thus it was definitely considered an ohel to block the tumah.

However, he counters, perhaps the closet can only block the tumah from going up, so that, for example, if the body of Bentham were in this wooden closet outdoors, a kohein would be allowed to sit on top of the closet. But in our case, the closet was indoors, and the Rambam writes in Hilchos Tumas Mes 20:1 that if a small tent stands inside a large tent, and a dead body is in the small tent, everything in the large tent becomes tamei. And although the Raavad disagrees, that is only when the small tent has its own entrance to the outdoors, and thus the body will eventually be carried out directly to the outdoors without passing through the large tent. But in our case, the wooden closet only had one exit – to the college hall. This principle is known in the Gemara as סוף טומאה לצאת – since the tumah will eventually go out through that door to the college hall, the college hall is tamei even now.

To solve this problem, Dayan Grossnass proposes that since Bentham’s body is in a glass box, and even when they take it out for gatherings, they wheel out the entire box, not just the body, this is not called “the tumah will eventually come out”. This is because the glass box is also an ohel within an ohel. But that would depend if glass has the same property as wood – does a large glass box act as an ohel?

The tumah of glass vessels is Rabbinic: because they are made from sand, Chazal gave them the status of earthenware (Shabbos 16b). Regarding earthenware, there is a dispute between Rashi and his teachers as to whether a large earthenware vessel can act as an ohel to block tumah (Shabbos 44b). But even according to Rashi who is strict with earthenware, glass certainly acts as a blocker. We see that Reb Chaim Brisker (Tumas Mes 19:1) learns that the Rambam holds like Rashi and the Raavad holds like Rashi’s teachers. Yet even the Rambam is explicit that a large glass vessel blocks tumah (Hilchos Keilim 3:3).

One objection could be raised: the glass box containing Bentham’s body has wheels and can be moved from place to place, despite its large size. (This was written in 1965, but as of 2020, the body is in a glass box without wheels.) Tosafos (Shabbos 84a) says that a large wooden vessel that can be dragged by men is considered a regular vessel and is susceptible to tumah. Rav Grossnass however theorizes that, perhaps, with glass we would not be so strict. Also, perhaps this glass box is different because it was made never to be opened.

Thus the argument to be lenient goes as follows: first of all, maybe a non-Jew has no tumas ohel. And even if he does, maybe the halacha is like the Raavad that a tent inside a tent is not a problem. And if you say, even the Raavad is strict in cases where the tumah will eventually come out – here the tumah will never come out because it’s inside a glass box. And if you say, a large box does not block the tumah because it is moveable by virtue of its wheels, maybe glass is different.

What about the box holding the head? Even though it is a wooden box made to rest, and therefore not susceptible to tumah, still it’s too small to be an ohel. Dayan Grossnass responds, based on a Chazon Ish, that that is only true according to the Rambam Tumas Mes 13:4, but according to the Raavad 28:5 even a small box is considered an ohel. So for the Rambam l’shitaso, we can rely on the Rambam’s own ruling that non-Jews are not metamei baohel. And according to the opinion that a non-Jew is metamei, we can rely on the Raavad, who holds the box is an ohel.

However, there is another problem: perhaps the wooden closet or the glass box itself has the status of a “kever” – a grave (i.e. a mausoleum)? True, the Rambam (chapter 12 of Tumas Mes) says a wooden coffin is not a kever. But the Raavad disagrees. And even the Rambam only said it regarding wood, because it’s not earth, but glass is made from sand, which is earth. And although the body is visible and burial usually means it is hidden from view, in this case the wooden closet makes it hidden, so it should be considered a kever and thus be forbidden. This is especially true in light of the bolts holding it to the floor; perhaps even the Rambam would agree that wood can be a kever in that case. To these arguments, Dayan Grossnass replies that the floor of the college hall separates the glass from the ground, so it’s not a kever.

After discussing the matter with the Tchebiner Rav, Dayan Grossnass realized that there is yet another reason to be lenient: the Raavad (Hilchos Nezirus 5:15) holds that a kohein who is already tamei (which applies to all kohanim nowadays) is not forbidden Mid’oraisa to come in contact with a meis. Since it’s only Mid’rabanan, we can rely on the opinion that non-Jews are not metamei ba’ohel. He quotes many teshuvos who relied on this combination, including a very interesting teshuva of the Maharsham (1:215) about visiting a royal museum containing Egyptian mummies.

Since Dayan Grossnass’ heter is based on a combination of several disputed opinions, we must ask: what about the rule that a sofek tumah in a private domain is always tamei, even if there are several sfeikos? To this, Dayan Grossnass provides three answers: 1) That rule applies only to a sofek about the facts, not to a sofek in the law. 2) The college hall is a public domain because many people are constantly walking through it. 3) The rule of “private domain” only applies when we’re not sure if something became tamei or not, and we need to decide what to assume. But tumas kohanim is an issur, and so it follows the regular rules of issur v’heter.

Source: Pamphlet published by the London Beth Din, 1965, #14, “B’inyan Dinei Ohel Hameis.”

[Utilitarianism teaches that people should do whatever results in the most happiness for the most people. It’s ironic that Jeremy Betham, as the founder of utilitarianism, thought he was giving people happiness by putting his body on display forever; he confidently envisioned that “if it should so happen that my personal friends and other disciples should be disposed to meet together on some day or days of the year for the purpose of commemorating the founder of the greatest happiness system of morals and legislation, my executor will from time to time cause to be conveyed in the room in which they meet the said box or case with the contents therein, to be stationed in such part of the room as to the assembled company shall seem meet.” But who did he end up benefiting? Scholars of the Torah, which teaches not utilitarianism but right and wrong, mutar and assur – from whom his strange request continues to serve as a springboard for discussion of the deepest sugyos in Shas. Indeed, everything that is done in the world is “for Israel, that they should learn Torah” (Avodah Zarah 2b).    

It’s also ironic that Bentham chose not to be buried, but according to one possibility brought up in this teshuva, he was indeed buried in the glass box, which is like sand.]

Avodah Zarah

Avodah Zarah 29b: The Photo of the Mahari Aszod

YCLeave a comment

Avodah Zarah 29b: Just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from a dead body, so too it is forbidden to derive benefit from idolatrous sacrifices. And the dead body itself – how do we know? We derive it using a gezeirah shavah from the eglah arufah.

Tosafos, Pesachim 22b: Handing an object that is forbidden to derive benefit from (issurei hana’ah) to a non-Jew is forbidden, because since it would be forbidden to do so for pay, the fact that the non-Jew is grateful to him is considered like pay.

עבודה זרה כט ע”ב: מה מת אסור בהנאה, אף זבח נמי אסור בהנאה. ומת גופיה מנלן? אתיא שם שם מעגלה ערופה, כתיב הכא: (במדבר כ) ותמת שם מרים, וכתיב התם: (דברים כא) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל, מה להלן אסור בהנאה, אף כאן נמי אסור בהנאה.

פסחים כב ע”ב תוספות ד”ה ואבר מן החי: דכיון דבשכר היה אסור להושיט דאסור להשתכר באיסורי הנאה אף על גב דדיעבד שכרו מותר כדמשמע בפ׳ בתרא דמס׳ ע״ז (ד׳ סב.) מכל מקום אסור לכתחלה ובחנם נמי אסור דמה שמחזיק לו העכו״ם טובה חשיב כמשתכר.

Rabbi Yehuda Aszod, known as Mahari Aszod (1794-1866), was the rav of Szerdahely and a major leader of Hungarian Jewry. His great-grandson, Yehuda Goldstein, wrote a biography of him and printed it at the beginning of the Mahari Aszod’s commentary on the Torah, Divrei Mahari. Near the end, he wrote as follows:

“My great-grandfather never allowed anyone to take a photograph of him. However, many of his students wanted his picture to remember their teacher. Therefore, after he passed away, some of his students decided amongst themselves to dress him in his Shabbos clothes, place him on his chair and take a photograph; this picture is now found in many Jewish homes. However, all those who participated in this deed were severely punished: It was not long before they all died. They were punished for disturbing his holy body after death by carrying him for this purpose.”

Source: Divrei Mahari, p. 41

[The great-grandson assumes that the reason they were punished had to do with lack of kvod hameis. But one could raise a different question: maybe by looking at the photo and selling the photo, they were deriving benefit from a meis, and a meis is אסור בהנאה – one is forbidden to derive benefit from it.

In 1938, Rabbi Zev Tzvi Hakohein Klein of Berlin wrote a small sefer of teshuvos entitled Kahana Mesayea Kahana. In siman 12, he takes the position that it is allowed to photograph a dead body as a memento for the family, because this is not the hana’ah that was forbidden. Hana’ah from a dead body means taking something away from the body, such as hair, and using it. Here, the photo is taking nothing away. However, he forbids the photographer to charge a fee, because that would be making money off issurei hana’ah, which Tosafos forbids (Pesachim 22b).

Rabbi Klein mentions that there was another rav, Rabbi Yitzchok Weiss of Verbau, who forbade taking pictures of bodies, and brought proof from four precedents. Rabbi Klein proceeds to rejects each proof in turn:

  1.  Someone had a stillborn, deformed child and wanted to carry it around with him to arouse people’s pity so that they would give him tzedaka. The Pleisi (Rabbi Yonasan Eybeshutz, second perek of Hilchos Yom Tov) forbade this because one may not derive benefit from a dead body. Rabbi Klein’s response is that there, he was making money off the meis, but here, one is merely looking at a photo of a meis.
  2. The Noda Beyehuda (2:206) forbids doctors to examine a dead body in order to determine the reason for the illness and learn how to prevent it or cure it in the future. Rabbi Klein’s response is that there, the doctors are violating the honor of the meis by cutting him open, but here one is merely taking a photo.
  3. The Sefer Masa D’Yerushalayim tells the story of how they took a photo of the Mahari Aszod “in order to sell the photo” and says this was a great sin because one may not derive benefit from a dead body. Rabbi Klein responds that this was different for two reasons: they violated kvod hameis by sitting him in his chair, and they sold the photo for money. But one may take a simple photo of the meis lying in his coffin as a memorial for the family.
  4. Rabbi Yehuda Hechossid’s will says that one may not show a dead body in a grave to a non-Jew. According to this, perhaps one may not show the Mahari Aszod’s picture, or any picture of a body, to a non-Jew. Rabbi Klein responds that perhaps a photo is different from the actual body.]
Taharos

Mikvaos 7:1 – Making a Mikveh out of Ice

YCLeave a comment

Mikvaos 7:1: The following substances may be used as part of the minimum volume of the mikveh: snow, hail, frost and ice… Rabbi Akiva said, “Rabbi Yishmoel disagreed with me and said that snow cannot be used for a mikveh.” But the men of Meidva testified that Rabbi Yishmoel told them to go out, bring snow and make the entire mikveh out of snow. 

Tosefta, Taharos 2:3: A mikveh made of mayim sh’uvim (water that was carried in vessels) that froze is now free of the taint of mayim sh’uvim. If it melted, it is kosher to gather upon it.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 201:30: Only water invalidates a mikveh if it is carried in vessels. But snow, hail, frost, salt and thick mud, even if they are fluid enough to be poured from vessel to vessel, are not invalid when carried in vessels. Thus if one carried vessels full of these and dumped them into a mikveh that contained less than the minimum volume, they did not invalidate it. Not only that – even if the entire mikveh was made of snow, frost or hail brought in vessels, it is kosher.

201:31: A mikveh made of mayim sh’uvim (water that was carried in vessels) that froze is now free of the taint of mayim sh’uvim. If it melted, it is kosher to gather. Shach: This means that they are now like rainwater and one may immerse oneself in them. 

מקואות פ”ז מ”א אלו מעלין ולא פוסלין השלג והברד והכפור והגליד… אמר ר’ עקיבא היה ר’ ישמעאל דן כנגדי לומר השלג אינו מעלה את המקוה והעידו אנשי מידבא משמו שאמר להם צאו והביאו שלג ועשו מקוה בתחילה.

תוספתא טהרות ב,ג: מקוה שאוב שהגליד טהור משום מים שאובין, נמוחו כשר להקוות עליו.

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רא,סעיף ל: אין שאיבה פוסלת אלא במים אבל השלג והברד והכפור והמלח והטיט שהוא עב קצת אפי׳ יש בו רכות שיכולין להריקו מכלי אל כלי אין שאיבה פוסלת בהן שאם שאב מאלו למקוה החסר לא פסלוהו ולא עוד אלא אפילו עשה כל המקוה משלג או כפור או ברד שהביאו בכלי ועשה מהן מקוה כשר.

שם סעיף לא: מקוה שאוב שהגליד טהור משום מים שאובים, נימוחו כשר להקוות. וביאר הש”ך בסקע”ד: כשר להקוות, כלומר שחזרו להיות כמו מי גשמים ומותר לטבול בהן.

In July 2012, the rainwater basin of the mikveh of Omaha, Nebraska was accidentally emptied when a maintenance crew member thought that cleaning the mikveh meant emptying it completely. In most circumstances, a mikveh can be refilled relatively easily through rain, but that summer’s drought made that impossible.

The mikveh was out of service for almost two months. Women traveled to the next closest mikveh in Des Moines, Iowa, or Kansas City, Kansas, each more than two hours away. Dishes went unpurified. The receptionist at the Rose Blumkin Jewish Home, where Omaha’s mikveh is located, received calls every time it rained an inch, asking if the pool had somehow miraculously filled.

Rabbi Jonathan Gross of Beth Israel immediately contacted Rabbi Mendel Senderovic who lived in Milwaukee, but oversaw the kashrus of the Omaha Mikveh.  Rabbi Senderovic gave Rabbi Gross instructions of how to make sure that the mikveh was prepared to collect rainwater at the earliest onset of precipitation.   Unfortunately, with the Bor Z’riah (pool where rainwater collects) being empty and drought conditions preventing it from being easily refilled, it seemed that a usable mikveh would not likely be available in Omaha for many more months.  So in early August, Rabbi Yitzchak Mizrahi suggested using ice to fill the mikveh. 

Rabbi Mizrahi asked Rabbi Yaakov Weiss, the chaplain of the Blumkin Home and one of the supervisors of the mikveh, to use his connections at Yeshiva University to speak with Rabbi Hershel Schachter about this possibility. He called Rabbi Schachter, who referred him further to Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky, another Rosh Yeshiva at YU with encyclopedic knowledge and who has been involved more directly with mikveh construction and law. Rabbi Sobolofsky provided him with much insight and guidance to the requirements for using ice as an alternate method of filling the mikveh.  He had never been directly involved with this process, however, since it is a very rare occurrence, so he directed him to Rabbi Yirmiyahu Katz who not only wrote the book on modern mikvaos (literally), but who has also had first-hand experience at filling a mikveh with ice.  Rabbi Weiss called Rabbi Katz, and he was incredibly responsive, helpful and cautious while outlining the requirements and parameters of Jewish law needed to fill a mikveh with ice.  Through discussion with Rabbi Katz, sending him pictures of the Omaha mikveh (via snail mail as he did not use the internet), and research into how the mikveh normally functions, Rabbi Weiss developed a plan with Rabbi Katz involving the placement of 250 10-pound blocks of ice into the mikveh.  While Rabbi Weiss had a handle on the requirements of doing this from the standpoint of Jewish law, there were still many logistics to work out.  For example, would 250 blocks of ice realistically fit into the Omaha mikveh?  Could he get them in there before they all melted, as any melting would invalidate the process? 

[Theoretically, if the ice could be carried to the mikveh in such a way that all water drained off before reaching the mikveh, this would not have been an issue. Since, however, the ice invariably came packed in plastic bags, any melting would mean that the melted water remained in the bags and thus ended up in the mikveh together with the ice. See comments below.]

Here is how Rabbi Weiss later described the process of ordering the ice and getting it into the mikveh: “I spent days on the phone with Rabbi Katz, Matt Chadek, the Facilities Manager at the JCC, and any distributor of ice within 100 miles of Omaha.  (Did you know that while there are many ice companies – Arctic Ice, Omaha Ice, Glacier Ice – they are all actually the very same place?)

“Finally, I spoke with a local ice distributor, going over the process with him and letting him know that it was imperative that the solid blocks of ice stay frozen during the entire process. I arranged a team of 11 volunteers on a Friday morning to work as an assembly line to get ice from the delivery truck into the mikveh as quickly as possible.  I gave instructions and provided diagrams to volunteers.  Finally, the ice truck arrived.  I got onto the truck, lifted up the first ice block only to find that the block of ice was not a block at all; it was crushed ice in the shape of a block, pooling with water.  There was an audible sigh from all of the volunteers.  The delivery man looked baffled stating, “It’s ice. Ice melts.”  Unfortunately for us, we could not make use of any ice that had already begun to melt, and we needed to scratch the plan.  Despite having spoken with the manager at the ice company numerous times and discussed our exact needs, apparently his idea of frozen solid blocks of ice was different than mine.  We sent the ice back, and we all left the mikveh a little disappointed.  We were not, however, deterred.  Everyone was optimistic that we would meet again with a new plan to fill the mikveh with ice.

“As I continued on a search for solid blocks of ice (and now knowing that some people have different definitions of solid blocks of ice), I called more and more companies to see what was out there.  Lots of Federation, JCC and RBJH employees suggested ice distributors to contact, but all of them confirmed that their ice was crushed rather than solid.  I visited every local supermarket, gas station and superstore looking for solid blocks.  The closest I came was at HyVee where they sold such cubes, but probably due to their lack of popularity (unless you want them to fill a mikveh), they were all broken up in their bags.  The manager special ordered a fresh case of the blocks for him to examine, but even the ones right off the truck were no more solid than what was in the store.

“I moved on to my last option:  Muzzy Ice, a company specializing in 300-pound ice blocks used for ice sculptures.  These were actually solid ice blocks.  I talked with them to find out if it was at all possible to have the blocks made smaller so they would be easier to move.  One option was to hire an ice sculptor who would use a chainsaw.  Not only would our cost greatly increase, but the chainsaw would cause some of the ice to chip and melt and break apart in addition to adding grease from the chainsaw to our ice, making it unsuitable for our needs.  The other option was for us to use a Flintstones-style ice pick to chip away at the huge blocks. I came to the conclusion that we just had to go ahead and use the full size 300-pound blocks.  To achieve the amount of melted water necessary, we would need seven of them.  That is more than a ton of ice.

“This time, I wasn’t taking chances.  I went out to Muzzy Ice’s warehouse to personally inspect the blocks of ice to make sure they were indeed solid and suitable for our needs.  As I looked them over, I found that they were definitely solid (and definitely big), but they also had some frost built up on them.  I was concerned that the frost build up could cause an issue of premature melting, so I again consulted with Rabbi Katz.  He assured me that the buildup would not be problematic as any miniscule drops of melted ice that might form would immediately freeze back, and since we were transporting the ice early in the morning while it was still cool outside, there would likely not be any melting at all.  I also took a look at the inside of the ice truck to make sure that it was kept at a cool enough temperature to keep the blocks frozen.  I was very happy to see that there was ice buildup on the sides of the truck indicating that it was freezing on the truck – something that I did not see on our first attempt a few weeks earlier.  Once I had confirmation from Rabbi Katz about the ability to use Muzzy Ice, I checked one last time with Matt Chadek to be reassured that we could make this happen.  Matt was confident that he and his team could successfully move the ice blocks from the truck into the mikveh’s entrance one at a time, unwrap each cube, allow for inspection and then place them into the mikveh.  With that, I placed the order for the ice to be delivered 24 hours later.

“Those 24 hours were pretty anxiety-ridden.  Any minor deviation from the expected plan could result in a failed effort, not to mention the loss of significant funds since Muzzy Ice could not provide us with a refund policy.  I wanted to be responsible with our community’s resources and did not want a sizable amount of money to be spent on something that did not work out.  I enlisted Leon Shrago to assist me in the morning.  As he is recently retired, and always looking for ways to help the community and learn more, I knew he would be up for this challenge.

“The time finally arrived for all members of our team to be in place and fill our mikveh with ice.  At 8:00 a.m., the Muzzy Ice truck arrived and we assembled the crew.  Muzzy Ice was kind enough to be extra careful in ensuring that the ice stayed frozen and filled the truck with 100 pounds of dry ice to keep the truck colder than usual.  We plugged in the freezer truck to an outlet as an additional measure to ensure that everything stayed frozen until the blocks of ice were safely placed in the mikveh.  

“One by one, the delivery man wheeled the ice blocks which were wrapped in plastic and packed in boxes into the mikveh room.  The JCC and RBJH facilities staff unwrapped the ice blocks and got them ready to place in the mikveh at the top of the stairs.  Leon and I checked to see if there was any water pooling (there was not), and we wiped off any piles of frost as a safeguard.  Matt did the hard part of supporting most of the weight of each block of ice carrying them down the stairs with ice tongs, bracing each one with his body as an additional crew member held on to the ice at the top with tongs.  After each cube was placed in the mikveh, Leon and I wiped down any residual water to make sure no contamination took place. After the first block, Matt assured me that ‘It was pretty easy.’  But the sweat on his brow told me that maybe it just wasn’t as bad as he originally thought it would be… 

“Less than an hour later, all seven blocks were placed in the mikveh.  We all had a big sigh of relief.  Before we loaded the ice into the mikveh we bottomed out the thermostat to keep the room as cool as possible to prevent any melting.  Now that all the ice was inside the mikveh, we turned up the heat so that the ice would melt at a natural pace.  I locked the door, put a sign on it noting that no one should enter since any breach could result in a disqualification of the entire process.  Now, we waited for the ice to melt and for our mikveh to be functional once again.


“Within 48 hours of completing the whole ice transfer, nearly all of the ice had melted.  At that very same time, an act of G-d brought a deluge of rain upon Omaha – a storm that was not only a rarity for the past 3 months of the drought, but rainfall that by all measures was above normal.  As it turns out, the Bor Z’riah – the place in which rainwater is collected – was naturally filled by the storm with the requisite amount for a kosher mikveh. 

“Jewish tradition teaches that however much we as humans attempt to bring G-d into our lives, G-d reflects back the same amount of involvement in this world.  I can see no better manifestation of this teaching than in the story of the Omaha mikveh.  We as a community worked so hard together to ensure that a proper mikveh be available for our community.  At times, it seemed like it may not be worth the effort, or perhaps there was just no way to do it, but we persevered and made it happen.  While a mikveh filled with melted ice certainly would have been kosher for use and would have fulfilled the immediate needs of our community, it still would not have been a mikveh created in the ideal way – with rainwater.  An ice-filled mikveh requires many leniencies in Jewish law to be permitted for use that should only be employed in exceptional cases of great need.  (The drought of 2012 qualifies as such a case.)  So, I believe, G-d responded in kind to our community’s effort and provided for us a magnificent rainfall enabling Omaha to have a top-tier mikveh that meets the highest qualifications that Jewish law demands.”

Source: Rabbi Yaakov Weiss, personal memoir

[Rabbi Meir Arik (Imrei Yosher chelek 1, siman 148) raises four different concerns about man-made ice (i.e. any ice that was mayim sh’uvim before it was frozen). Actually, the first two concerns apply specifically to man-made ice, while the last two apply to any snow or ice, even natural, used as a mikveh.  

The questions about man-made ice center around the meaning of the Tosefta quoted above.

  1. The first question, brought up by Rabbi Meir Arik’s correspondent, is that the Smag, quoted by the Beis Yosef, gives two explanations of the Tosefta:
    1. One may make a mikveh purely out of melted ice (that was originally sh’uvim); the taint of sh’uvim is completely gone.
    1. When the ice melts, it is not kosher for a mikveh by itself, but one may add 40 se’ah of rainwater on top of it and the mikveh will be kosher. In other words, the melted ice does not have the status of “3 lugin of mayim sh’uvim” which invalidate a mikveh even if 40 se’ah are later added.

Although the Shach rules in accordance with the first opinion, the Smag himself seems to endorse his second explanation. He compares 40 se’ah of mayim sh’uvim that froze and then unfroze to 40 se’ah of mayim sh’uvim that flowed for 3 tefachim on the ground, in which case the Sheiltos rules the water is not kosher for a mikveh, but at least it’s allowed to add 40 se’ah of kosher water on top. Also, it can be argued that since we pasken (Yoreh Deah 201:44) like this Sheiltos, we should also pasken that sh’uvim that froze and then melted is also not kosher by itself.  (The counter argument would be that the Shulchan Aruch was not bound to the Smag’s comparison of freezing to flowing on the ground.)

  • Rabbi Meir Arik’s second argument against machine ice is that today’s water is tamei (since we are all tamei today and therefore the vessels used to draw the water which was then frozen are tamei) and so the Tosefta’s statement is not applicable anymore. Tamei water that froze and then unfroze is not kosher for a mikveh, according to the Tzlach in Pesachim 17b. (This problem may not have applied in Omaha, if the ice making machine or molds were not mekabel tumah.)

His two concerns about ice and snow in general:

  1. The Rema in s’if 30 quotes a Mordechai at the end of the fourth perek of Shabbos who brings a dispute as to whether one may immerse oneself in snow while still in its frozen state (Rabbeinu Shmarya), or one must wait for it to melt (Rabbeinu Simcha and Rabbeinu A. of Bohemia). The Rema concludes that it is better to be strict and wait for it to melt.

The Shach proves that actually, all the poskim agree with the stringent opinion, and even Rabbeinu Shmarya retracted in the end. Therefore, one may definitely not tovel in snow, a psak that seems merely academic, but… the Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 200) shows that it is very relevant to the procedure of making a mikveh from snow or ice. Let’s assume the snow or ice is now in the mikveh – how can we accelerate the melting process? We could pour a pot of hot water on it, but since the snow is not yet kosher for tevilah, that would be considered making the mikveh out of mayim sh’uvim. Therefore, the Chasam Sofer recommends placing a hot metal plate atop the snow, and piling up hot coals on the plate to keep it hot until the snow is melted. (In the Omaha story, they melted it by turning up the heat in the building, which would also be fine.)

  • The Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 200) brings that the Rosh actually holds that one may tovel in snow as is, but the Raavad in Baalei Hanefesh objects to this with a two-pronged argument (mimah nafshach): if the snow is treated like water, then why is it not subject to the law of sh’uvim? And if the snow is not treated like water, then why is it allowed to tovel in it? Therefore, says the Raavad, it is not allowed to tovel in snow as is. But it is not subject to sh’uvim, hence one may put snow in a vessel and carry it to the mikveh. The Chasam Sofer’s only concern is that part of the ice may melt while the snow is being transported to the mikveh, and that water in the bottom of the vessel – now mayim sh’uvim – will be added to the mikveh too. Therefore he advises using wicker baskets so that melting snow can drip out. In Omaha, with the ice packed in plastic and cardboard, there was a concern that melted ice might be in the package too, hence the care they took to keep it cold and wipe it down.   

Rabbi Meir Arik points out that the Chasam Sofer still does not satisfy the opinion of the Baal Hamaor, who is even stricter than the Raavad and says that one must not carry the ice in any kind of vessel because this is תפיסת יד אדם – human power. Rather one must slide it along the floor. However, this shitah – the Baal Hamaor – is against the psak of the Shulchan Aruch.  

The bottom line is that Rabbi Meir Arik was against machine ice for his first two reasons, and even with natural ice, he outlines rules for how to use it. Where did the other poskim stand on the issue of machine ice? The Divrei Malkiel permitted it. So did Rabbi Nissan Telushkin (Sefer Taharas Hamayim, page 46). However, there were poskim who were against it: The Gidulei Taharah, Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein, the Yad Dovid and the Satmar Rav (although the Satmar Rav’s teshuva on this subject has been lost so we don’t know his reasons).  Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Y.D. 3:67) was also against it.

In the Ohama story, it seems that the ice was placed in the bor tevilah, not the bor z’riah. (Rabbi Weiss refers to steps, and typically a bor z’riah does not have steps. Also the bor z’riah is typically small and wouldn’t have room for so many large blocks of ice (each cube probably had a side length of about 2 feet). Also, he relates that the rainstorm filled the bor z’riah, implying that it was empty until that point – not full of melted ice.) Then the ice melted, and then rainwater filled the bor z’riah, allowing them to add tap water to it and have it overflow into the bor tevilah. Thus, the icewater plus the rainwater overflow satisfied even the second explanation of the Smag, which holds that melted machine ice is not kosher by itself, but is kosher after 40 s’ah of rainwater is added to it. 

Can we interpret the Omaha story, as Rabbi Weiss did, as evidence that Hashem did not want them to rely on the opinion that permits machine ice, so He made it rain? Possibly, but the objection to that would be לא בשמים היא. The Omaha community asked a shailah to a posek, and Hashem agrees to the psak given by poskim in this world. Also, that would contradict another story of Divine intervention in a mikveh, which we hope to publish soon – stay tuned.]

Pesachim

Pesachim 7a: Talking during bedikas chometz

YCLeave a comment

Pesachim 7a: Rav Yehuda said: Before the search for chometz, one must make a bracha.

Rosh: “Some say that one should not speak until he finishes the bedikah, and some even say that if one did speak about matters unrelated to the bedikah, he must repeat the bracha. But I disagree. True, one should not speak between the bracha and starting the bedikah, but once he has started, speaking is not a hefsek, just as one may speak while sitting in a succah or during a meal and does not have to repeat the bracha on the succah or the hamotzi. Still, it is best not to talk about unrelated matters until finishing the entire bedikah, so that he should concentrate on checking every room and place where chometz is brought.” The Shulchan Aruch 432:1 rules in accordance with the Rosh.

פסחים ז ע”א: אמר רב יהודה: הבודק צריך שיברך.

הרא”ש: ויש אומרים שאין לבודק לדבר עד שיגמור הבדיקה ויש מוסיפין עוד יותר ואומרים שאם סח בדברים דעלמא שלא מעין הבדיקה שצריך לחזור ולברך וכל זה אין נראה לי אלא שיש ליזהר שלא יסיח בין ברכה לתחלת הבדיקה ואחר שהתחיל לא הויא שיחה הפסק מידי דהוה אישיבת סוכה וכאדם המדבר בתוך סעודתו דלא הויא שיחה הפסק להצריך לחזור ולברך על הסוכה וברכת המוציא… ומיהו לכתחילה טוב ליזהר שלא יעסוק בשיחה בטילה עד שיגמור כל הבדיקה כולה כדי שישים אל לבו לבדוק בחדרים ובעליות ובכל מקום שמכניסין בו חמץ.

One of the things that resulted from Rav Chaim Kanievsky’s long bedikas chometz was a complete booklet on the topic of bedikas chometz. Rav Chaim zt”l was accustomed not to speak during the bedikah, beginning from the bracha until the end – except for matters related to the search. Even if people were asking for a bracha, he would not answer with words, but only nodded his head.

One of the relatives who assisted Rav Chaim zt”l with bedikas chometz each year thought of an idea. Several days before Pesach he prepared questions about the laws of bedikas chometz. During the time of the bedikah, he came with pages of questions, and Rav Chaim zt”l answered all the questions, since they were related to the search. However, he would not answer shaalos on other topics. In this way, by the end of bedikas chometz, which took many long hours, he accumulated hundreds of answers from Rav Chaim which encompassed all the laws of the bedikah, enough to fill a complete sefer.

Source: Derech Emunah Bacharti, p. 3

[The Rosh does not say who this authority was who held that if one speaks, the bracha must be repeated. And the Rosh’s argument against this seems very convincing. After all, when doing the same mitzvah, such as succah, for an extended period of time, one need not be silent for the whole time. Why should bedikah be any different?

The answer may lie in the Rema in the following s’if, 432:2. The Rema quotes the Mahari Brin (Rabbi Yisroel Bruna) who held that before the bedikah, pieces of chometz should be put out so that the searcher will find them and his bracha will not be in vain. The Rema then disagrees and quotes with approval the Kol Bo, who says that the bracha is not in vain because when a person says על ביעור חמץ – “on the destruction of chometz,” he has in mind to destroy it if he finds it.

It seems that this dispute is about whether the bracha goes on the searching itself (i.e. Chazal enacted that we must search for chometz, so whether we find any or not, we are fulfilling the mitzvah), or on the actual finding and destruction of chometz.

If so, according to the opinion of the Mahari Brin that the mitzvah is to actually find chometz, if one began the bedikah but did not yet find anything, he has not started the mitzvah and thus would not be allowed to interrupt with speaking. One who spoke before finding the first piece of bread would have to repeat the bracha. This would be the meaning of the opinion quoted by the Rosh. (Although the Rosh lived before the Mahari Brin, we can assume that the authority he quoted held the same position as the Mahari Brin.)    

The Taz, commenting on the Rema about putting out ten pieces, offers a different reason why the bracha is not in vain even if ten pieces were not placed and no chometz was found: because the bracha refers to the burning of the chometz in the morning. The difficulty with the Taz is: what if no ten pieces were placed, no chometz was found during the search, and the person’s bracha therefore goes only on his burning in the morning? Then it should come out that he would not be allowed to speak from the bedikah until the burning. But we don’t find such a halacha.

We also see from the Rosh that the reason it is allowed to talk about matters related to the bedikah is not because it actually helps one search, similar to the halacha (Orach Chaim 167:6) that one may say, “Pass the salt” between hamotzi and eating. Rather, the reason is that one must stay focused on the bedikah and make sure to do a good job, and talking about related matters will not distract him. (But, for example, a person would not be allowed to listen to a shiur on some unrelated topic while doing the bedikah, even if he himself does not speak at all.) This explains why Rav Chaim was willing to speak about the halachos of bedikah even though this speaking did not actually help him do his own bedikah.]

Nedarim

Nedarim 41a: Even a fly can kill

YCLeave a comment

Nedarim 41a: Said Rabbi Alexandri in the name of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: When the end of a person’s life comes, anything can overpower him, as Kayin said to Hashem, “Anyone who finds me will kill me” (Bereishis 4:14). Rav derived this from a different posuk: “They stood for Your judgment today, for all are your servants” (Tehillim 119:92).

The Mefaresh explains: Anything can overpower him – even a fly or a mosquito.

The Ran explains: Once the verdict of Your judgment is that the person’s time has come to die, all things are Your servants to carry out the sentence. 

נדרים מא ע”א: וא״ר אלכסנדרי א״ר חייא בר אבא, ואמרי לה אריב״ל: כיון שהגיע קיצו של אדם הכל מושלים בו, שנאמר: (בראשית ד) והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני. רב אמר, מן הדין קרא: (תהלים קיט) למשפטיך עמדו היום כי הכל עבדיך.

One maggid shiur explained this Gemara with the Mefaresh’s comment by saying that the fly or mosquito might bite him and infect him with a deadly disease. But one of the listeners spoke up and said, “I can explain it based on my own experience. I once set out in my car and said Tefilas Haderech, and as I said the words, ‘Save us from dangerous animals on the road,’ I wondered to myself, why do we still say these words nowadays? Usually we’re traveling inside a car and the animals, if there are any, pose no risk. About a half hour later, I got my answer. A small fly entered my eye as I was speeding down the highway, and I lost control of the car and crashed. Miraculous, I emerged with only minor injuries. Then I understood that sometimes, the ‘dangerous animals’ can mean flies. Probably that is the meaning of the Gemara in Nedarim too: when there is a decree of death upon a person, even a fly or a mosquito can overpower him.”

Source: Meoros Hadaf Hayomi, Nedarim 41a (v. 3 p. 160)

[The listener’s explanation seems more correct than the maggid shiur’s. The Gemara is saying that anyone can be Hashem’s messenger to carry out a death sentence, even those creatures who aren’t usually harmful. If the meaning is as the maggid shiur said – that a mosquito infects him with malaria – that is the usual way of getting malaria. That does not illustrate how Hashem uses an unusual messenger. According to the listener, however, flies do not usually cause car accidents, so his story shows that anything can kill if that is Hashem’s decree.

Why does the Gemara bring a proof from Kayin? Because when Kayin said, “Anyone who finds me will kill me,” he was not afraid of any human avenger. Hevel had no children, and Adam and Chava would not kill their own son. Clearly, Kayin meant an animal sent by Hashem, because he thought that Hashem had decreed death upon him.]

Nedarim

Nedarim 8a: Is Daf Yomi a neder?

YCLeave a comment

Nedarim 8a: Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: One who says, ‘I will get up early tomorrow and learn this perek, or this masechta’ has vowed a great vow to the G-d of Israel.”

נדרים ח ע”א: ואמר רב גידל אמר רב: האומר אשכים ואשנה פרק זה, אשנה מסכתא זו ־ נדר גדול נדר לאלהי ישראל.

Rabbi Meir Shapiro proposed the Daf Yomi at the first Knessiah Gedolah of Agudath Israel, in Elul 5683 (1923). He had some trouble getting people to accept the idea. Before the opening session of the Knessiah, he presented the idea in a private meeting of the Moetzes. Some were concerned that people would not take it seriously, and would then have less respect for the Gedolei Yisroel after they proposed a revolutionary idea that was not accepted. Therefore they advised that Rabbi Meir Shapiro speak publicly and advance the idea himself.

Another one of the Moetzes members asked, “Suddenly every am haaretz is going to finish Shas and be considered a Shas Yid?” Reb Meir was caught off guard. He had not been expecting an objection like that. Luckily, Rabbi Menachem Ziemba spoke up in his defense and said, “A Yid who finishes Shas is already not called an am haaretz!”

Reb Meir still feared that as he was young and relatively unknown, people would not accept his idea. He met privately with the Chofetz Chaim and asked him to present the idea instead. The Chofetz Chaim replied, “No, you present it yourself. But I ask you to come to the session 20 minutes late.” When Reb Meir walked in, the hall was already packed. The Chofetz Chaim rose in his honor, and everyone else followed suit. After that unusual display of respect, everyone paid close attention to Reb Meir’s speech, and the Daf Yomi proposal was greeted with unexpected enthusiasm. It was decided that the Daf would begin with Berachos on Rosh Hashanah 5684 (1923).

There were many, however, who were afraid to start the Daf Yomi program because of the great responsibility of daily learning. What if they missed a day? Perhaps, they thought, starting the program would be considered a vow, as the Gemara says in Nedarim 8a, “Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: One who says, ‘I will get up early tomorrow and learn this perek, or this masechta’ has vowed a great vow to the G-d of Israel.” Also, the Gemara says in Sanhedrin 26b, “Thoughts can prevent a person from learning Torah,” which Rashi explains (in his second pshat) to mean that if a person plans ahead too confidently, saying that by such-and-such a date I will finish these masechtas, the plan will likely be unsuccessful. Rather, these people argued, better to simply learn with no stated quota.

These misgivings continued until the first day of Rosh Hashanah arrived, and the Gerrer Rebbe, the Imrei Emes, left his beis medrash after davening, saying, “Now I am going to learn the Daf Yomi!” Following the Rebbe’s example, thousands of Chassidim took upon themselves the Daf Yomi schedule, and thousands more Jews from all over the world followed suit, then and in the 14 cycles since then.

Source: Mayim Chaim – Biography of Rabbi Chaim Kreiswirth, pp. 90-94   

[The question of why one who misses the Daf one day is not considered to be transgressing a neder was left unanswered. Perhaps we could suggest an answer based on the rule of בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם – “When it comes to Nedarim, follow the language of people.” (Nedarim 49a and many other places). The words of a person’s vow legally mean what most people use them to mean. When most people say they are learning Daf Yomi, they mean that once in a while, they might miss a daf and make it up later.

Therefore, if someone makes his own private resolution to get up early and learn a certain daf, that is a neder as the Gemara says. But if someone joins the Daf, they are joining it with the intent of doing what the other Daf learners typically do.  

Thus in Elul 1923, everyone was afraid to be the first to accept the Daf, because there would be no precedent to base themselves on, and perhaps it would be a neder to learn every single day. But after Rosh Hashanah 1923, once the Gerrer Rebbe and his close Chassidim accepted it, others could accept it too and their words would mean whatever the Rebbe’s words meant – to learn it on most days.

Alternatively, we could say that the Gerrer Rebbe certainly said “bli neder” when accepting it, so it became the standard that anyone accepting the Daf meant bli neder, although he may not have said so explicitly.

As to the second quote, from the Rashi in Sanhedrin 26b, we could say that Rashi means that one who boasts about exactly how much he will learn is punished either because of his arrogance, or because of ayin hora. But in the case of Daf Yomi, once it was already accepted by many people, one who announces that he is joining is not displaying arrogance, neither does it cause ayin hora.]

Succah

Succah 51b: How high must a mechitzah be?

YCLeave a comment

Succah 51b: What was the “great improvement”? … Originally, during the Simchas Beis Hashoevah, the women sat inside the Ezras Nashim and the men sat outside. But the men and women began socializing (“kalus rosh”), so they reversed it: women on the outside and men on the inside. But still there was kalus rosh. Finally they built a balcony and made a rule that the women had to sit above and the men below. 

סוכה נא ע”ב: מאי תיקון גדול? ־ אמר רבי אלעזר: כאותה ששנינו, חלקה היתה בראשונה והקיפוה גזוזטרא, והתקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מלמעלה ואנשים מלמטה. תנו רבנן: בראשונה היו נשים מבפנים ואנשים מבחוץ, והיו באים לידי קלות ראש, התקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מבחוץ ואנשים מבפנים. ועדיין היו באין לידי קלות ראש. התקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מלמעלה ואנשים מלמטה.

It is well-known that the Baal Shem Tov said, “You are wherever your thoughts are.” Less known is that the Ramban says it too, and uses it to explain how an eiruv works.

In his commentary on Eiruvin 17b, the Ramban wonders: according to Rabbi Akiva who says that walking out of the 2000-amos techum is a Torah prohibition, how does an eiruv techumin work to circumvent it? If it were a Rabbinic prohibition, we would understand: Chazal created the prohibition so they have the right to make the exception. But if it’s D’oraisa, why should putting some food out on the road make that spot your starting point to measure the techum, while you sit at home, not even able to see that spot?

The Ramban proposes that either eiruv techumin is a Halacha L’moshe Misinai, or else it is a svara. The logic would be that since his mind is on that spot, he has made it his home. The Gemara says (Eiruvin 73a), “We are witnesses that if he were living there, he would be happier.” His thoughts make it his place of eating and sleeping, and therefore we measure his techum from there.

Fascinatingly, this concept came into play in the famous dispute between Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and the Satmar Rebbe over the required height of a mechitzah in shul. The source for a having a mechitzah is the Gemara in Succah about the women’s balcony constructed in the Beis Hamikdash during the Simchas Beis Hashoevah, and their dispute hinged on whether that balcony’s purpose was to prevent mingling, or to block the men’s view of the women.

Central to the debate was an apparent contradiction in the Rambam between his Commentary on the Mishnah and his Yad Hachazaka. In the Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam says:

תיקון גדול ר”ל גדול התועלת והוא כי העם היו מתקנים מקום לאנשים ומקום לנשים ומקום הנשים למעלה ממקום האנשים כדי שלא יסתכלו האנשים בנשים.

“The place for the women was above the place of the men, in order that the men would not gaze at the women.”

But in Hilchos Lulav 8:12 he writes:

ערב יום טוב הראשון היו מתקנין במקדש מקום לנשים מלמעלה ולאנשים מלמטה כדי שלא יתערבו אלו עם אלו.

“On Erev Yom Tov, they would prepare in the Temple a place for the women above and the men below, in order that they should not mingle with each other.”

The Rambam says this again in Hilchos Beis Habechirah 5:9, and it is actually an explicit Mishnah in Midos 2:5 that the balcony was there so that the men and women should not mingle.

Based on this, Reb Moshe argues that the mechitzah is to prevent mingling, socializing and touching, not seeing, and therefore in our shuls, an upstairs gallery need not be blocked off from vision by a wall, and an ezras nashim on the same level with the men need not have a mechitzah higher than shoulder height.

In a second teshuva written to support the first one, he stresses that gazing deliberately at women, whether in shul or anywhere, is forbidden; however, the mechitzah in shul is not there to prevent people from doing aveiros. Everyone is responsible to guard his own eyes. The mechitzah is there because it’s a Torah obligation for a shul or any place of public gathering to have one. Indeed, were it not a Torah obligation, it would not have been allowed to add it to the Beis Hamikdash, every aspect of which was dictated by nevuah.

How then does Reb Moshe explain the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah where he says the balcony was built to prevent gazing? He proves that the Rambam cannot mean to prevent people from doing the aveirah of gazing, because: 1) Even after the balcony was built, the women were visible, and 2) Before they built the balcony too, Chazal had the women sit on the inside and men on the outside without any partition between them, so they were clearly not concerened about blocking visibility. They changed this setup only after they saw that it led to kalus rosh – socializing and touching. Therefore, the Rambam must mean that looking at the women was leading to mingling, and that is why a balcony was built – to prevent mingling.

The Satmar Rebbe, on the other hand, says that a mechitzah must block the women from view, and he bases himself on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah. How does the Satmar Rebbe explain the Rambam in Yad Hachazakah and the Mishnah in Midos, which say that the problem is mingling? He answers that when men gaze at women and think about them, it is considered as if they were physically there among the women. This is based on two sources: the Ramban in Eiruvin quoted above, and also the concept of בני ערבוביא – literally, “children born from a mixture” (Nedarim 20b). According to the Tur, this refers to a man who lives with his wife while his mind is on another woman. We see that they are called a mixture, even though physically they may be far apart, since his mind is on her.

Thus, the “kalus rosh” and “taaruves” mentioned in the Gemara as the impetus for building the women’s balcony really means that the men were gazing at the women. They solved this problem by making a balcony with a solid fence around it so that the women would not be visible. In our shuls too, the mechitzah must be high enough to block vision.

Sources: Igros Moshe OC 1:39-40, Teshuvos Divrei Yoel 1:10

[Rabbi Aharon Rubenstein brought a proof to Reb Moshe from the Ramban on Parshas Ki Savo, on the words ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת, who quotes a Yerushalmi that explains this to refer to lifting up the Sefer Torah in shul. The Ramban adds that the writing in the Torah should be shown to every man and woman in the shul. If the mechitzah were higher than the women’s heads, how would they see the Sefer Torah?

However, even the Satmar Rebbe surely agreed that the women at the Simchas Beis Hashoeva were able to see the dancing, although the men could not see them. It must be that the fence around the balcony in the Beis Hamikdash was built with curtains or holes through which the women could look. Here too, in shul, the mechitzah could be the same way so that the women could see the Sefer Torah.

The Satmar Rebbe also quotes an opinion (the Teshuras Shai, Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Tabak, dayan of Sighet) who said that the women should not be able to see the men. The Satmar Rebbe disagrees with this, citing the Simchas Beis Hashoeva and also the fact that there is no historical precedent for this. So the Satmar Rebbe clearly agrees that the women could see through the mechitzah, and thus see the Sefer Torah as well. (The question from the Ramban would be a problem for the Teshuras Shai. So would the poskim quoted by the Mishnah Berurah at the end of Siman 88 who say that a niddah should not look at the Sefer Torah – implying that other women do look.]

Chullin

Chullin 110a: Not Inviting Yourself Out

YCLeave a comment

Chullin 110a: Rami bar Dikuli from Pumbedisa came to Sura on Erev Yom Kippur. All the people took their udders and threw them out. He went and picked them up and ate them. They brought him before Rav Chisda, who asked him: “Why did you do that?” He said, “I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders.”

 רמי בר תמרי, דהוא רמי בר דיקולי מפומבדיתא, איקלע לסורא במעלי יומא דכפורי, אפקינהו כולי עלמא לכחלינהו שדינהו, אזל איהו ־ נקטינהו אכלינהו, אייתוה לקמיה דרב חסדא, אמר ליה: אמאי תעביד הכי? אמר ליה: מאתרא דרב יהודה אנא, דאכיל. אמר ליה: ולית לך נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם? אמר ליה: חוץ לתחום אכלתינהו. ובמה טויתינהו? אמר ליה: בפורצניֹ. ודלמא מיין נסך הויא? אמר ליה: לאחר שנים עשר חדש הווֹ. ודלמא דגזל הוה? אמר ליה: יאוש בעלים הוה, דקדחו בהו חילפיֹ. חזייה דלא הוה מנח תפילין, אמר ליה: מאי טעמא לא מנחת תפילין? אמר ליה: חולי מעיין הוא, ואמר רב יהודה חולי מעיין ־ פטור מן התפיליןֹ.

Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz often surprised his listeners with unusual sources for his principles of mussar.  A classic example of Rav Chaim’s mussar analyses of maamarei Chazal draws from the Gemara in Chullin 110a, which relates how Rami bar Dekuli of Pumbedisa was once visiting Sura on Erev Yom Kippur. When the townspeople threw away the udders of animals they had slaughtered for the Erev Yom Kippur feast, he collected them and ate them, in spite of the fact that there was a custom in Sura not to eat the udders of animals. Rami bar Dekuli was brought before Rav Chisda who asked him many questions about how, why and when he cooked and ate the udders. In the course of the discussion, Rav Chisda also asked why Rami bar Dekuli was not wearing tefillin, and he replied that he suffered from a stomach ailment.

Reb Chaim spent a long time explaining every single detail of the story. When he finished, the audience still could not work out the connection between the Gemara he was quoting and the rest of the shmuess. Finally, after a short pause, Reb Chaim continued:

“I am troubled by a very difficult question. Rav Chisda asked Rami bar Dekuli many questions, but one question he did not ask him: A Jew is suffering from a stomach ailment on Erev Yom Kippur. Why is he searching for discarded animal udders in garbage cans? In every Jewish home, people are sitting around the table eating the festive meal of Erev Yom Kippur. Why didn’t Rami bar Dekuli knock on somebody’s door? It seems that one does not ask such a question, for Rav Chisda understood very clearly the meaning of the words, אל תצטרך לבריות – do not take handouts from other people.”  

Source: The Rosh Yeshiva, p. 185; Sichos Mussar p. 29.